https://www.cnet.com/news/mayor-charles-wasko-obama-facebook-spark-outrage/#ftag=CAD590a51e
Friday, September 30, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Teen defends the 2nd Amendment, school orders psych evaluation [feedly]
----
Teen defends the 2nd Amendment, school orders psych evaluation
// Personal Liberty Digest™
A high school senior in New Jersey was suspended from school and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation after officials discovered he'd completed an anti-gun-control project for a class.
Student Frank Harvey said he completed the project last year after it was assigned by a teacher for a college readiness class.
"It was assigned by the teacher, and I got the topic, which was anti-gun control, approved by the teacher," he told News 12 New Jersey.
But when Harvey recently left a thumb drive containing the project, complete with news reports of people using guns in self-defense and pro-2nd Amendment political cartoons, the police got involved.
After police investigated and cleared Harvey—supporting the 2nd Amendment isn't a crime, after all— one would think that the non-issue would have been resolved.
Unfortunately, officials at the school escalated the situation, suspending the student and questioning his sanity.
"I've never been a violent person. I've never had detention in my life," Harvey told reporters.
The teacher is for some reason denying having assigned the project, according to the student.
Even so, it's worth reiterating that defending the 2nd Amendment isn't a crime.
Harvey has since dropped out of the school and will finish his education with a GED.
Again, one would think that the state would now be forced to drop the issue. But according to the student's mother, it hasn't.
The state department of child services was sent to the student's home this week.
"They came to my home trying to talk to my son," said his mother. "I was at work. I told my son they have no right to talk to him. He refused to speak with them and they left. I'm not sure why they came. The school likely sent them out because they didn't like how things have come out in the media.
"This is harassment. I want them to leave us alone. My son is at home studying for his GED. There's no reason for this. They're just harassing us. I'm not going to have my son undergo a psychological exam based on a teacher's lies. I'm not going let them label him. I'm not going to roll over. My son and his welfare comes first."
School officials and representatives from child services refused to comment to media.
The post Teen defends the 2nd Amendment, school orders psych evaluation appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Former Army officer says U.S. has lost control of military [feedly]
----
Former Army officer says U.S. has lost control of military
// Personal Liberty Digest™
A former Army Special Operations officer says the Obama administration's inability to officially say the U.S. has a no-first-use nuclear policy is a sign that military top brass want to antagonize Russia and China.
Asked about whether he thought it was a good idea for U.S. leaders to unequivocally pledge that the nation would only use nuclear weapons in a defensive capacity, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters:
"It has been the policy of the United States for a long time to extend the – its nuclear umbrella to friends and allies and — thereby to contribute to the deterrence of conflict and the deterrence of war and many of our friends and allies have benefited from that over time. And our future plans will retain for the United States the capability to meet those alliance commitments in the future."
Confused reporters asked the official to clarify whether he'd just said 'yes' or 'no.' Carter's response remained unclear.
"It has been our policy for a long time and it's part of our plans going forward," he said.
Since the U.S.'s use of nuclear bombs to end WWII, presidential administrations have made clear that nuclear technology would only be used again as a matter of last resort.
But earlier this year, Obama administration officials began discussing whether the administration should ratify the longstanding unwritten policy with an official pledge.
Senior military officials, including Carter, rejected the proposal, saying any such move would signal weakness to nuclear powers like Russia and China. Despite his desire to make decreasing international reliance on nuclear weapons part of his legacy, Obama has now abandoned the proposal.
Scott Bennett, a former Army psychological warfare officer who is now a whistleblower, said in an interview with the Iranian-backed PressTV that all of this is a sign elected officials in the U.S. may be losing control of the military.
"Essentially what I see [military leaders] doing is positioning the United States Pentagon – the Department of Defense – in a military gun road within the United States that is headed up by psychopaths and uniforms that are really blood-drunk with war for the past 15 years, setting them up for a long-term military conflict with Russia, Iran and China," he said.
Bennett called for the White House to regain control of what he sees as a military apparatus engaging in provocation of other nations for its own benefit.
"The military in the United States is now off the chain, it's not obeying President Obama, it is not obeying the United States Congress, instead you have a small cabal within the Pentagon and specifically the US Central Command commanding the Middle East theater, positioning itself for a long-term war," he said.
Bennet added that Americans should be particularly alarmed of the possibility of conflict with Russia "given the positioning of the batteries of missile silos now in Romania and Poland" the U.S. military is currently beefing up.
The post Former Army officer says U.S. has lost control of military appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Monday, September 26, 2016
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Friday, September 23, 2016
Report destroys Obama, Clinton example of gun-free utopia [feedly]
----
Report destroys Obama, Clinton example of gun-free utopia
// Personal Liberty Digest™
Democrats frequently cite Australia as a perfect example of how government taking away the right to bear arms can reduce criminal access to firearms. The only problem is that it can't.
Last October, the former first lady praised Australian-style gun control and said a similar mass disarmament of citizens is "worth considering" in the U.S.
She said federal gun confiscation could take place under the guise of a buyback campaign similar to the Cash for Clunkers program that accompanied the U.S. auto industry bailout.
"I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. You remember that?" she asked. "It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. So I think that's worth considering."
Unfortunately for Clinton, a new report out from Melbourne newspaper The Age reveals that the forced Australian gun buyback in the late 1990s and subsequent gun bans in the country are doing little to keep firearms out of criminal hands.
From the report:
The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.
Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.
These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime…
The article goes on to declare "criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre."
Shootings, according to the report, have become a "almost a weekly occurrence" in Melbourne.
The National Rifle Association said of the report: "Melbourne's recent experience should serve as yet another example of the futility of gun control measures that burden the rights of the law-abiding. Given the ease with which Melbourne's criminals arm themselves despite the severity of their country's gun control regime, Clinton and Obama would be wise to look past Australia when putting together their next gun control speech."
The post Report destroys Obama, Clinton example of gun-free utopia appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Why you should always carry a gun [feedly]
----
Why you should always carry a gun
// Personal Liberty Digest™
People often ask why I'm such a staunch advocate for gun rights, why I believe so strongly in the 2nd Amendment, and why I close my preparedness articles with the words, "store ammo and guns." There are many answers, but one need only look at the video below from Charlotte, North Carolina for an emphatic, dramatic and traumatic one.
The riots in Charlotte show what a societal breakdown looks like… especially in urban centers. Looting, gangs, large mobs and traffic jams put innocent people in dangerous situations. Without warning, individuals and families can easily and all-to-quickly find themselves surrounded and in a dangerous spot. A gun is an equalizer.
So I urge you, dear reader, to buy a gun, get trained in its use, and practice, practice, practice. Have a spare magazine handy for situations like this one. Don't be a helpless victim.
The post Why you should always carry a gun appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Petition: Cut Obama’s pay while he campaigns for Clinton [feedly]
----
Petition: Cut Obama's pay while he campaigns for Clinton
// Personal Liberty Digest™
Thousands of fed-up Americans are demanding that Congress cut President Barack Obama's taxpayer-covered salary and other benefits for any time he spends campaigning for Democrat Hillary Clinton between now and the presidential election in November.
The demand comes in the form of a Stand United petition expressing alarm that Obama plans to put his presidential duties on hold while devoting most of his time over the next month to getting Clinton elected.
The petition's creators explain:
According to reports from the White House, Barack Obama has instructed his staff to clear his calendar for the month of October this year. Obama, who is in his last four months in the White House, is apparently concerned that a Republican President would overturn his legacy. Obamacare, EPA rules against coal, green energy initiatives are all at risk for this President.
Just as Obama did when first elected to office, most opposite political party Presidents spend their first 100 days in office overturning the previous President's executive orders and memorandums. Obama would much prefer to preserve those executive mandates by helping Hillary Clinton become America's next President, and thus preserving his third term in office.
Many sitting Presidents endorse a candidate for the Presidency when their term is up; it is very rare for a President to actively campaign for someone else.
Citing "fuzzy" federal election guidelines about how much the president is allowed to rely on his taxpayer-provided travel benefits as he makes his way across the country on Clinton's behalf. FEC laws, the petition notes that the Democratic Party is supposed to "to repay the American people at a reduced rate if the travel is purely political." Without hard rules, though, the petitions creators worry that American taxpayers are getting shafted by Obama's use of Air Force One—which costs about $180,000 per hour to operate— as he travels promoting Clinton's candidacy.
Besides Air Force One costs, Obama enjoys a salary of $400,000 in addition to a $50,000 expense account "to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties."
To discourage Obama from becoming campaigner-in-chief throughout October as the nation's domestic and international troubles continue to build, the petition asks members of Congress to force the president to do his job or forego its benefits.
"We the People demand that Congress withhold President Obama's salary, pension, travel expenses, etc. for any time he spends actively campaigning for Hillary Clinton between now and the election in November. The People of the United States demand accountability for funding to public officials—all bills related to revenue must begin in the House of Representatives," the petition says.
As of this writing, nearly 50,000 Americans had signed the online petition.
Congress has the sole authority to withhold presidential pay—but members would have to provide a workaround for constitutional stipulations that presidential pay "shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected" if they were serious about freezing Obama's paycheck while his on the road for Clinton.
Sign the petition at Stand United.
The post Petition: Cut Obama's pay while he campaigns for Clinton appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Friday, September 16, 2016
Practicing Christianity about to become illegal in Massachusetts [feedly]
----
Practicing Christianity about to become illegal in Massachusetts
// Personal Liberty Digest™
The basic foundational tenets of the Christian religion are about to become "illegal" in Massachusetts.
This is certainly not a surprise as the elites who walk the halls of power have long been working to eliminate the notion of the one Supreme Being God from the public consciousness and replace Him with their one god – the state. In fact, I wrote before the Supreme Court issued its ruling Obergefell v. Hodges that if the court created a "right" to "gay marriage" that it would be end of religious liberty in America.
That's because the PC movement and LGBT movement and all other movements allegedly seeking "equality" are not about equality at all. They are about seeking to divide people against each other and gain special privileges for one group at the expense of others and manipulating people into surrendering more of their liberties to government.
The Orwellian Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has decided that in order to prevent discrimination against mentally ill individuals who can't distinguish their own sex despite their ability to gaze upon their own male or female genitalia, it must sanction discrimination against the only group of people against whom discrimination is currently acceptable: Christians.
Beginning Oct. 1, 2016, Massachusetts churches and Christian organizations and private schools will be in violation of state law if they use "names, pronouns, and gender-related terms" that conflict with a person's "stated gender identity." The churches will also be in violation of the law if they do not accommodate those sick and twisted supposedly "gender-confused" individuals by allowing them to use restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms "consistent with their 'gender identities.'"
The law applies not only to preachers and evangelists who may deliver messages from the pulpit, but also church employees, congregants and volunteers who may interact in any way with people who come in off the street. Any of these people who use gender pronouns that a "gender-confused" individual considers "offensive" will have created a "hostile environment" under the law and be subject to fines and penalties.
This is a direct assault on the Christian religion and basic Christian tenants that God created "male and female," that to engage in sexual immorality is sin that leads to death, and that man is responsible for and will be judged upon his own actions based on God's word. Even presenting a "gender "confused" individual while in the building or on its grounds with a Bible containing these tenets will cause one to run afoul of the law.
In addition to being an assault on the 1st Amendment rights (as incorporated under 20th century Supreme Court rulings) of Massachusetts residents, the law is in direct conflict with the Massachusetts Constitution which states in Article II:
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
And Article XVIII, Section 1 which states:
No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
The Massachusetts Christian cannot abide by this new ruling by the commission, for he must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). This puts the state in direct violation of its own constitution and in an antagonistic relationship with the state's Christian citizens and religious institutions.
To participate in the fiction that a person determines his sex based on his own whims is to engage in a lie, and God abhors a liar (Proverbs 6:16-17). The Christian cannot be "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." But rather, the Christian is to speak "the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love." (Ephesians 4)
The apostle Paul wrote that those who "suppress the truth" or "ignore God's righteous decree" of the truth and "give approval" to those who practice sexual immorality — or to a host of other sins mentioned in Scripture — are just as guilty as those who practice it. (Romans 1 and 2 and Ephesians 4)
It is commonly said that Christians are to love the sinner and hate the sin. That is true. But that does not mean the Christian can condone, accept or participate — even tangentially — in the sin. A sin can be committed by omission as well as by commission.
Forcing Christians to do so against their will is tyranny and a violation of their rights under God's law and natural law, in addition to – as noted –violations of rights of religious liberty under both the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions.
Massachusetts Christian churches and organizations can now expect an onslaught of lawsuits accusing them of the sophistic "crime" of "gender discrimination" as the social justice warrior class seeks to sue Christianity out of existence.
Related reading:
The government's war on Christianity
Gender confused? Ash Carter says join the military
'The general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws'
Lawyers and minorities love socialism
The post Practicing Christianity about to become illegal in Massachusetts appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)